Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
94 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

R. Armiento
Hi,

I just want to bring bug #311683 to "public awareness" and
discussion. Since it is a bit of a "sociopolitcal" and policy
issue, I suspect there may be people out there who feel
strongly about this one way or the other, and with
the upcoming release of debian sarge, it might not be optimal
if this feature makes it out to the official release "under
the radar" without being publically discussed.

The issue is:
1. The WebCollage screensaver "...makes collages out of
random images pulled off of the World Wide Web. It finds
these images by doing random web searches...". The result is
a screensaver that often shows sexually explicit images.

2. The xscreensaver package contains the WebCollage
screensaver, but places it among the screensavers that per
default are not included in "random screensaver".

3. KDE's random screensaver ignores xscreensavers settings
about what screensavers should be included in "random
screensaver" and randomize over all screensavers.

Result: users of KDE with the 'random screensaver' setting
eventually find their screens filled with sexually explicit
content. And even if that should be fixed, users "flipping
through the screensavers" risk being presented with sexual
content in the screensaver preview window.

Here is the bug link:
  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=%23311683

It may also be relevant that a similar discussion is taking
place on the Fedora bug lists:
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=139513
(with duplicate bugs: 139777, 149803, 140684)

//Rickard


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

madcoder (Bugzilla)
please don't start the "hot-babe" thread again ...
--
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                [hidden email]
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

attachment0 (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

MJ Ray-2
In reply to this post by R. Armiento
"R. Armiento" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I just want to bring bug #311683 to "public awareness" and

You reported it yesterday. Why bounce it so soon?

> discussion. Since it is a bit of a "sociopolitcal" and policy
> issue, I suspect there may be people out there who feel
> strongly about this one way or the other, and with

Policy issue? Which bit of policy? I searched debian-policy for
porn and didn't find any.

> the upcoming release of debian sarge, it might not be optimal
> if this feature makes it out to the official release "under
> the radar" without being publically discussed.

There's a bug open about it. I doubt the release will be held
for a new kdebase-bin now, though.

> The issue is:
> 1. The WebCollage screensaver "...makes collages out of
> random images pulled off of the World Wide Web. It finds
> these images by doing random web searches...". The result is
> a screensaver that often shows sexually explicit images. [...]

Can you quantify "often" please?

Really, any site that gives a toss about accidental images
should be using a filtering proxy, IMO, so I don't agree
that this should lose anyone their job. normal not important.


--
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

Miros/law Baran
In reply to this post by R. Armiento
3.06.2005 pisze R. Armiento ([hidden email]):

> The issue is:
> 1. The WebCollage screensaver "...makes collages out of
> random images pulled off of the World Wide Web. It finds
> these images by doing random web searches...". The result is
> a screensaver that often shows sexually explicit images.
>
> 2. The xscreensaver package contains the WebCollage
> screensaver, but places it among the screensavers that per
> default are not included in "random screensaver".
>
> 3. KDE's random screensaver ignores xscreensavers settings
> about what screensavers should be included in "random
> screensaver" and randomize over all screensavers.
>
> Result: users of KDE with the 'random screensaver' setting
> eventually find their screens filled with sexually explicit
> content. And even if that should be fixed, users "flipping
> through the screensavers" risk being presented with sexual
> content in the screensaver preview window.

Thank you for bringing this irrelevant bug to our attention.

I think that this bug should be closed or tagged wontfix; it is not
Debian problem or the debian maintainer's issue but a problem in the
submitter's mind.

Jubal

PS. A definite porn image for you (this image contains a close-up on
the reproductive organs): <http://www.digart.pl/zoom.php?id=177981&dwnl=1>.
Now, you can whine for a reason.

--
[ Miros/law L Baran, baran-at-knm-org-pl, neg IQ, cert AI ] [ 0101010 is ]
[ BOF2510053411, makabra.knm.org.pl/~baran/, alchemy pany ] [ The Answer ]

  Cynic: One who looks through rose-colored glasses with a jaundiced eye.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

R. Armiento
In reply to this post by MJ Ray-2
MJ Ray wrote:
> "R. Armiento" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>I just want to bring bug #311683 to "public awareness" and
>
> You reported it yesterday. Why bounce it so soon?

I discovered and reported it yesterday. My personal feelings about the
issue isn't that strong, and apparently neither is the feelings of
the maintainers that have had the time to look at it so far. However,
given the recent debacle about explicit content in debian (the
"hot-babe" issue) I expect there to be people out there who do
feel very strongly about it and perhaps even think it is a sarge release
showstopper. I felt that it was fair to at least give these people a
chance to comment on the issue before sarge is released. This was my
motivation to posting this thing to the list this soon.

>>discussion. Since it is a bit of a "sociopolitcal" and policy
>>issue, I suspect there may be people out there who feel
>>strongly about this one way or the other, and with
>  
> Policy issue? Which bit of policy? I searched debian-policy for
> porn and didn't find any.

Isn't the lack of policy also a policy? I did not mean policy issue in
the sense of "this surely breaks current policies" but in the sense of
"is there any current policy that applies to this?", and "should there
be a policy to govern it?".

(Btw: "I searched debian-policy for porn and didn't find any." is just
such a great quote when taken out of context ;)...)

>>The issue is:
>>1. The WebCollage screensaver "...makes collages out of
>>random images pulled off of the World Wide Web. It finds
>>these images by doing random web searches...". The result is
>>a screensaver that often shows sexually explicit images. [...]
>  
> Can you quantify "often" please?

That depends of course on the user's definition of "sexually explicit
images". In my current workplace environment, I would feel embaressed
for about 1 out of 10 images. This means that in almost every Collage
there are a few images involving nudity or 'worse'. But don't take my
word for it; start it up and mesure it according to your own standards.
If the general feeling is that "this is not so bad", I suppose that
makes the bug a non-issue.

> Really, any site that gives a toss about accidental images
> should be using a filtering proxy, IMO, so I don't agree
> that this should lose anyone their job. normal not important.

Good argument. However, there are workplaces out there who do not
run filtering proxies, or become upset when people trigger the filters.
It just might not be enough comfort for a person who get in trouble for
this, that you don't agree with his company's policy.

//Rickard


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

Stephen Gran
In reply to this post by R. Armiento
This one time, at band camp, R. Armiento said:
> The issue is:
> 1. The WebCollage screensaver "...makes collages out of
> random images pulled off of the World Wide Web. It finds
> these images by doing random web searches...". The result is
> a screensaver that often shows sexually explicit images.

So you are suggesting that a network that doesn't care enough one way or
another about pornography to filter their web traffic will suddenly be
exposed to naked people via a screensaver?  What network do you work on
that a screensaver is your first exposure to naughty bits?

> 2. The xscreensaver package contains the WebCollage
> screensaver, but places it among the screensavers that per
> default are not included in "random screensaver".
>
> 3. KDE's random screensaver ignores xscreensavers settings
> about what screensavers should be included in "random
> screensaver" and randomize over all screensavers.
>
> Result: users of KDE with the 'random screensaver' setting
> eventually find their screens filled with sexually explicit
> content. And even if that should be fixed, users "flipping
> through the screensavers" risk being presented with sexual
> content in the screensaver preview window.
This sounds like something for site policy, not Debian policy.  It is
most certainly not a bug.  Were I the maintainer of the package, I would
just close the report.  You asked to get a collage of web images.  Most
of the web is porn sites.  Therefor, you asked for porn.  Feature, not
bug, if you ask me.  If you don't want porn, filter the traffic.

> Here is the bug link:
>   http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=%23311683
>
> It may also be relevant that a similar discussion is taking
> place on the Fedora bug lists:
>   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=139513
> (with duplicate bugs: 139777, 149803, 140684)

RedHat may care to cater to people too stupid to filter their web
traffic.  I certainly don't, and I hope that the maintainer of
xscreensaver and kdelibs-bin don't either.

If it offends you, don't use it.  If it offends your site, have site
policy filter it.  Please, please, please, people, can we stop with the
bugs about accidental exposure to something you don't want to see?  Take
a little responsibility for what you install on your computer already.

Debian won't stop people from staring at the Sun until their eyes burn
out either.  Is that a grave, normal, or wishlist bug?
--
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
|   ,''`.     Stephen Gran |
|  : :' : [hidden email] |
|  `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-    http://www.debian.org |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------

attachment0 (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

Fabian Pietsch
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 11:51:16PM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This sounds like something for site policy, not Debian policy.  It is
> most certainly not a bug.  Were I the maintainer of the package, I would
> just close the report.  You asked to get a collage of web images.  Most
> of the web is porn sites.  Therefor, you asked for porn.  Feature, not
> bug, if you ask me.  If you don't want porn, filter the traffic.

Isn't the issue that the user did *not* ask for it, as KDE uses the
screensaver as part of random, against xscreensaver's defaults?

> If it offends you, don't use it.  If it offends your site, have site
> policy filter it.  Please, please, please, people, can we stop with the
> bugs about accidental exposure to something you don't want to see?  Take
> a little responsibility for what you install on your computer already.

Perhaps a random user can not be bothered to look at every detail of
every package on the system... When installing the xscreensaver package,
there won't be many people who check out information about *every*
screen saver in it beforehands. And people selecting random screensaver
probably don't expect that to crawl the web for external content...

> Debian won't stop people from staring at the Sun until their eyes burn
> out either.  Is that a grave, normal, or wishlist bug?

Granted, but it won't include code to hypnotise the user to stare at the
sun either. ;)

Regards, Fabian

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

MJ Ray-2
In reply to this post by R. Armiento
"R. Armiento" wrote:
> I discovered and reported it yesterday. My personal feelings about the
> issue isn't that strong, and apparently neither is the feelings of
> the maintainers that have had the time to look at it so far. However,
> given the recent debacle about explicit content in debian (the
> "hot-babe" issue) I expect there to be people out there who do
> feel very strongly about it and perhaps even think it is a sarge release
> showstopper. [...]

Is R Armiento trolling and trying to block release?
I can only wonder at the motives.

> > Policy issue? Which bit of policy? [...]
> Isn't the lack of policy also a policy?

No, it's a lack of policy about something.

Is the lack of intelligence a type of intelligence?

> > [...] Can you quantify "often" please?
> That depends of course on the user's definition of "sexually explicit
> images". In my current workplace environment, I would feel embaressed
> for about 1 out of 10 images. This means that in almost every Collage
> there are a few images involving nudity or 'worse'. [...]

So, this 1 in 10 is about nudity rather than pornography? That
leads me to wonder about the bug reporters' definition of nudity.
Is a revealing top with lots of flesh counted as nudity? Would
the infamous ubuntu nipples be pornography?

> > Really, any site that gives a toss about accidental images
> > should be using a filtering proxy, IMO, so I don't agree
> > that this should lose anyone their job. normal not important.
> Good argument. However, there are workplaces out there who do not
> run filtering proxies, or become upset when people trigger the filters.
> It just might not be enough comfort for a person who get in trouble for
> this, that you don't agree with his company's policy.

There are workplaces which don't allow you to use encryption, yet
we're not tossing out the encryption libraries. If a workplace
has policies so important to them which kscreensaver doesn't
accommodate, maybe they should ban kscreensaver.

--
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

R. Armiento
In reply to this post by Stephen Gran

Stephen Gran wrote:
> If it offends you, don't use it.  If it offends your site, have site
> policy filter it.  [...]  Take a little responsibility for what you
> install on your computer already.

The thing is, I *perfectly* agree with these statements. The "bug" here
is just about that the current setup may make it a little too easy for
people who will be offended by WebCollage to still accidently install
and use it. It is sensible to both 1) keep things available for people
who want to use them 2) help people avoid running things they do not
wish to run. Don't you agree with this general principle?

Because then the whole thing is just a grey-zone question about the
balance between '1' and '2' in the specific case of WebCollage. And I
suggest that putting it as basically the default screensaver on every
kde-users desktop may be a little unbalanced towards '1'.

> So you are suggesting that a network that doesn't care enough one way or
> another about pornography to filter their web traffic will suddenly be
> exposed to naked people via a screensaver?  What network do you work on
> that a screensaver is your first exposure to naughty bits?

I work in an academic workplace. A somewhat offended user of debian
testing alerted me that porn was being shown on his desktop and he had
no idea why. This is the first report I have had to deal with of someone
being offended by porn in this workplace.

> You asked to get a collage of web images.  Most of the web is porn
> sites.  Therefor, you asked for porn.  Feature, not bug, if you ask me.

You miss the point that no one really asked for this "collage of web
images". It was a feature of the "default install" of debian testing. If
the user or I had known about WebCollage, we would have turned it off.
The point of the bug report is that this is likely to apply to most
workplaces. That is 1) people do not know about Webcollage 2) if they
knew, they would turn it off. A default that most people turn off, is
that a good default?

> Debian won't stop people from staring at the Sun until their eyes burn
> out either.  Is that a grave, normal, or wishlist bug?

Debian do not install the Sun as the default desktop wallpaper. If it
did, and burt the eyes of new users, that would be reported as a grave
bug. I rest my case.

//Rickard


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

Mark brown-22
In reply to this post by MJ Ray-2
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 11:22:53AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:

> Is R Armiento trolling and trying to block release?
> I can only wonder at the motives.

It doesn't seem like an unreasonable concern for them to be raising.
The timing is (to say the least) unfortunate but that needn't be
malicious.

--
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

MJ Ray-2
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 11:22:53AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Is R Armiento trolling and trying to block release?
> > I can only wonder at the motives.
> It doesn't seem like an unreasonable concern for them to be raising.

As a bug. It's not reasonable to bring it here the next day.

--
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

MJ Ray-2
In reply to this post by R. Armiento
"R. Armiento" wrote: [...]
> > You asked to get a collage of web images.  Most of the web is porn
> > sites.  Therefor, you asked for porn.  Feature, not bug, if you ask me.
> You miss the point that no one really asked for this "collage of web
> images". It was a feature of the "default install" of debian testing.

Is kdebase-bin really part of the default install now? Yikes!

You may not have known that you were asking for it and that might
be a bug in the debian package or upstream, or it might be
intentional.

[...]
> The point of the bug report is that this is likely to apply to most
> workplaces. That is 1) people do not know about Webcollage 2) if they
> knew, they would turn it off. A default that most people turn off, is
> that a good default?

Do most people turn it off?

[...]
> Debian do not install the Sun as the default desktop wallpaper. If it
> did, and burt the eyes of new users, that would be reported as a grave
> bug. I rest my case.

What justification for grave? It would be usable for short
times and not cause data loss or open a security hole. It's
just painful, so even that only qualifies for "important"
IMO. I think you're uprating your bugs.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

Christian Kaenzig
[Disclaimer: I'm not a DD]

On Saturday 04 June 2005 17:07, MJ Ray wrote:
> "R. Armiento" wrote: [...]
> > Debian do not install the Sun as the default desktop wallpaper. If it
> > did, and burt the eyes of new users, that would be reported as a grave
> > bug. I rest my case.
>
> What justification for grave? It would be usable for short
> times and not cause data loss or open a security hole. It's
> just painful, so even that only qualifies for "important"
> IMO. I think you're uprating your bugs.

I just wanted to add some thoughts here.

I'm sorry, but IMHO, everything with distributions is not about security holes
or data loss! In this thread you are all talking about people in the
workplace. That's one point, but isn't Debian potentially being used on
family computers, with children also using it ? I think this is even a more
grave issue.

BTW, isn't it illegal in most countries to show "porn" to underage people !? I
know that one does not have to search very long to find porn on the internet
anyway, but that just doesn't mean it's right (still IMHO).

My 2 cents...

Christian


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

Daniel Burrows
In reply to this post by MJ Ray-2
On Saturday 04 June 2005 08:07 am, MJ Ray wrote:
> "R. Armiento" wrote: [...]
>
> > > You asked to get a collage of web images.  Most of the web is porn
> > > sites.  Therefor, you asked for porn.  Feature, not bug, if you ask me.
> >
> > You miss the point that no one really asked for this "collage of web
> > images". It was a feature of the "default install" of debian testing.
>
> Is kdebase-bin really part of the default install now? Yikes!

  I don't know what's in the 'default' install, but kde is part of the
"desktop" task, which I'd expect a lot of users will use to install desktop
systems.

  Daniel

--
/------------------- Daniel Burrows <[hidden email]> ------------------\
|           Whoever created the human body left in a fairly basic           |
|           design flaw.  It has a tendency to bend at the knees.           |
|             -- Terry Pratchett, _Men at Arms_                             |
\---------------- The Turtle Moves! -- http://www.lspace.org ---------------/

attachment0 (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

MJ Ray-2
In reply to this post by Christian Kaenzig
Christian Kaenzig wrote:
> On Saturday 04 June 2005 17:07, MJ Ray wrote:
> > "R. Armiento" wrote: [...]
> > > Debian do not install the Sun as the default desktop wallpaper. If it
> > > did, and burt the eyes of new users, that would be reported as a grave
> > > bug. I rest my case.
> > What justification for grave? It would be usable for short
> > times and not cause data loss or open a security hole. [...]
> I'm sorry, but IMHO, everything with distributions is not about security holes
> or data loss!

I agree, but only those qualify for a grave bug in debian at present.
See http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities

Just because someone disagrees, it doesn't make their bug grave.

> [...] That's one point, but isn't Debian potentially being used on
> family computers, with children also using it ? I think this is even a more
> grave issue.

No. debian is known not to be child-safe if you care about these
things. Use debian-jr or make sure they have tightly configured
systems. See http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-jr/

Kids with unrestricted net access can download porno anyway.
If that bothers you, don't let them have it and this bug is
avoided anyway.

--
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

Mark brown-22
In reply to this post by MJ Ray-2
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 03:48:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:

> > It doesn't seem like an unreasonable concern for them to be raising.

> As a bug. It's not reasonable to bring it here the next day.

No, but not quite so obviously malicious as you seem to feel either.

--
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

MJ Ray-2
In reply to this post by Daniel Burrows
Daniel Burrows wrote:
>   I don't know what's in the 'default' install, but kde is part of the=20
> "desktop" task, which I'd expect a lot of users will use to install desktop=
> systems.

This surprised me, so I went looking. The "desktop" task seems
to contain gnome, kde and no other desktops. That's very strange
because I can't see why many users would want that as the basic
task and it's not really a general desktop try-out system either.
I'd hope to see kdedesktop, gnomedesktop and officeapps tasks,
or pick just one desktop. Oh well.

Please file a bug against tasksel, if it bothers one enough. I
suspect that's too late for sarge now. Even so, kdebase is
"optional" so I think it's not in the default install after all.

Is http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#s3.9
about Tasks out of date?


--
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

Gürkan Sengün
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 18:35:35 +0100
MJ Ray <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Daniel Burrows wrote:
> >   I don't know what's in the 'default' install, but kde is part of the=20
> > "desktop" task, which I'd expect a lot of users will use to install desktop=
> > systems.
>
> This surprised me, so I went looking. The "desktop" task seems
> to contain gnome, kde and no other desktops. That's very strange
> because I can't see why many users would want that as the basic
> task and it's not really a general desktop try-out system either.
> I'd hope to see kdedesktop, gnomedesktop and officeapps tasks,
> or pick just one desktop. Oh well.
>
> Please file a bug against tasksel, if it bothers one enough. I

I already did, some time ago:
http://bugs.debian.org/286986

What's even more annoying is that it doesn't check if the target
has enough space for it...

Gürkan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

MJ Ray-2
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=FCrkan_Seng=FCn?= wrote:
> > I'd hope to see kdedesktop, gnomedesktop and officeapps tasks,
> > or pick just one desktop. Oh well.
> >=20
> > Please file a bug against tasksel, if it bothers one enough. I
> I already did, some time ago:
> http://bugs.debian.org/286986

I don't understand why that was marked done rather than wontfix
(and so hiding it from the normal view).

> What's even more annoying is that it doesn't check if the target
> has enough space for it...

So tasksel isn't safe for use with less than acres of disk?

--
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion of bug #311683, default kde install shows porn

R. Armiento
In reply to this post by Mark brown-22
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 03:48:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>>Mark Brown wrote:
>>>It doesn't seem like an unreasonable concern for them to be raising.

>>As a bug. It's not reasonable to bring it here the next day.

> No, but not quite so obviously malicious as you seem to feel either.

Since the main issue on my mind was "do people feel that it is ok that
this goes into the sarge release?", exactly what would have been proper
procedure? How long should I have waited before bringing it to the list?

I anticipated somewhat different responses than what I have received;
When discussing and demonstrating it to friends, they have been more of:
"OMG!, thanks for warning me, this is pretty horrible. I will disable it
immediately." However, given how people have responded here, apparently
the whole thing isn't such a big issue.

Also, I never really imagined that there would be people counter-arguing
that the only problem is my moral values, and thus implicitly state that
to them WebCollage indeed is completely safe-for-work. Have you people
actually looked at WebCollage? Anyway, just to show that I am at least
not utterly alone, here are a few googled examples of people who
apparently share my unreasonable and silly moral values:
   http://www.ozzu.com/ftopic38523.html
   http://software.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=43148&cid=105055
   http://austinlug.org/archives/alg/2005-01/msg00247.html
   http://www.genehack.com/
(Search pages for 'collage' to find the relevant section).

//Rickard


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

12345